THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE

LL.M. (Two Year Course)

Wednesday Seminar XII
(01.04.2015)
(2:30pm to 4:45pm)
Ravindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh1
I FACTS
THE PRESENT appeal was filed in the Supreme Court by way of special leave
petition against the final judgment and order of the high court of Judicature at Madhya
Pradesh. The appellant had filed an appeal in the high court against the judgment of trial
court convicting him under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced
him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, and in default of payment
of fine, 6 months simple imprisonment. The high court upheld the conviction and the
sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court. Aggrieved by the order of the high court
the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of India. The case was decided by the
two judge bench of the Supreme Court. In the present appeal, the Supreme Court has
examined, inter alia, the question as to whether the case falls under proviso to section 376
(1) IPC, to award a lesser sentence for adequate and special reason.
II JUDGMENT
Although the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant but reduced the sentence
to the period already undergone by the appellant by holding that the case of the appellant is
a fit case for invoking the proviso to section 376(2) (g) 2of IPC for awarding lesser sentence.3
The adequate and special reasons stated by the court are, firstly, that the incident is 20 years
old, secondly, that the parties are married (not to each other) and, lastly, that the parties have
entered into a compromise. The bench relied on the judgment in Baldev Singh v. State of
Punjab4, which was held not a precedent by a three judge bench in Shimbhu v. State of

Special leave petition No. 1410 of 2013 (Arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 1275 of 1997), decided
on12.03.2013.
2

Legislature through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 has deleted this proviso.

Although the facts of the case reveal that the case falls within ambit of section 376 (1), the
Supreme Court has erroneously invoked the proviso to section 376 (2).
4

(2011) 13 SCC 705.

Haryana.5 In the present case, the Supreme Court has also upheld the observations of the
high court that the testimony of the prosecutrix requires no further corroboration.
III ISSUES
1. Whether the factors like long pendency of criminal trial or compromise reached
between the parties or marriage of the parties hold any relevance in sentencing in
rape cases? Can such reasons be treated as special and adequate reason to exercise
the discretion under proviso to section 376 (1) and (2)?
2. Having overlooked the judgement of a larger bench has the Supreme Court in the
instant case, committed judicial impropriety and indiscipline and thwarted the
doctrine of stare decisis? Do you think, the matter should been referred to the larger
bench for reconsideration in case of any disagreement?
3. Whether the court was justified in holding the accused liable on the sole testimony of
the prosecutrix, given the fact that it has minor contradictions and is not corroborated
by other prosecution witnesses?

Suggested Readings:
1. Ravindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Special leave petition No. 1410 of 2013
(Arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 1275 of 1997), decided on 12.03.2013.
2. Shimbhu v. State of Haryana, AIR 2014 SC 739.
3. Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 13 SCC 705.
4. M. A. Rashid, Two Judge Bench (SC) Lets off Rapist with the sentence already

undergone citing a Judgment which was held as no longer a precedent by Three

Judge Bench available at http://www.livelaw.in/breaking-two-judge-bench-sc-letsoff-rapist-sentence-already-undergone-citing-judgment-held-no-longer-precedentthree-judge-bench/, (visited on 19th march, 2015).

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1278-1279 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1011-1012 of
2012. Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Shimbhu v. State of Haryana after
considering Baldev Singh, held that-In Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, though courts below
awarded a sentence of ten years, taking note of the facts that the occurrence was 14 years old,
the appellants therein had undergone about 3 1/2 years of imprisonment, the prosecutrix and the
appellants married (not to each other) and entered into a compromise, this Court, while
considering peculiar circumstances, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, but
enhanced the fine from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. In the light of series of decisions, taking
contrary view, we hold that the said decision in Baldev Singh cannot be cited as a precedent and
it should be confined to that case.